Is this documented somewhere?
> > I'm reminded of when Andrew Tanenbaum discouraged Bruce Evans and me from
> > working on a multi-threaded file system for Minix because it'd reduce the
> > pedagogic value of Minix.
> >
> > We know what happened then.
>
> Yes. His OS stayed a teaching OS has he deeply believed it should.
Yes, but meanwhile it forked, producing a better OS: Minix.
Now there's Hurd on the horizon, Eros looking like reviving the `debate' about
microkernels, and no reasonable facsimile of a version control or patch
submission system for Linux.
>>> So the answer might be as simple as "The author never tried
>>> to get it included", have you even asked the author about this and does
>>> s/he even _want_ it in the kernel?
>>
>> Yes, I asked. Yes, the author has posted patches. He's probably too
polite.
>
> Feel free to be his marketing front man. I do however think you are 4 weeks
> late for 2.4
>From one marketing front man to another: I respect your desire to keep the
brand name pure, but what's in a number? Something for real marketing front
men to put on a press release? What's it got to do with the *other* use to
which one might put Linux ... experimenting with new features?
What'd be really nice would be a system where people could directly submit
branch material, others could selectively check out branches, and still others
could (if they wished) re-join the branches.
Linus could bless branches, so could you, but people should be able to roll
their own to a much greater extent, if Linux is to maintain any kind of
growing edge.
Another lesson from history is the gcc/egcs development. I'd say Linux's in
the balance now, but if I were intimately involved with the kernel, I'd be
open-sourcing it as quickly as possible.
Colin.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/